Chris, I recommended that this conversation, since it involves legal matters, be moved ASAP to a closed list. It's not about keeping anyone out of the loop, it's about making 100% sure you know exactly who your audience is when discussing potentially litigious topics. Discussion about specific use of trademarks qualify here, I'm afraid.
No arguments from me about other uses of board-private, btw. We're trying hard to self-deprecate that list and steer all other discussion to the public lists. It's taking a bit of bad habit breaking, but I know people (including myself) are working hard at it. -DeWitt On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Chris Messina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > This sounds contradicting -- Dick, are you saying that this discussion > should be made public so the community it aware of it, or made private > because "It is often inappropriate and counter productive in negotiations > for your strategy and discussions to be public." > Which side are you advocating for? > > Frankly I think the private list should be used as a last resort, if not > banished altogether. > > I'm fed up with private back-door conversations with the "open" ID > foundation. > > Chris > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Dick Hardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Agree the community should be aware of issues and results. >> It is often inappropriate and counter productive in negotiations for your >> strategy and discussions to be public. >> >> -- Dick >> >> On 2-Dec-08, at 11:27 AM, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote: >> >> Open is King! Why hide such an important subject? It's certainly >> something the community and others should know about and to which results >> we'd come eventually! >> >> Regards Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.<http://www.startcom.org> >> Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: Join the >> Revolution!<http://blog.startcom.org> >> Phone: +1.213.341.0390 >> >> On 12/02/2008 07:27 PM, DeWitt Clinton: >> >> Definitely sounds like a problem. We should discuss legal matters off the >> public list, however. >> >> Off topic, do Marketwatch URL's really contain unencoded '{' and '}' >> characters? Someone should really point them to RFCs 1738 and 2396. >> >> -DeWitt >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Johannes Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/OpenQ-Announces-Release-Breakthrough-Solutions/story.aspx?guid= >>> {3E32B03F-4DDD-4AC3-83F2-D02A46D39176} >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Johannes Ernst >>> NetMesh Inc. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://netmesh.info/jernst >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >>> >>> >> ------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> >> > > > -- > Chris Messina > Citizen-Participant & > Open Technology Advocate-at-Large > factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org > citizenagency.com # vidoop.com > This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > >
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
